What does "Need to know" mean?
When information is classified as "need to know", it means that you will be told the information if you require the information to do your job.
I used to work on military systems, and "need to know" had a very straightforward definition. Can you do your job without knowing that information? If the answer is "yes", you don't need to know.
I knew stuff my managers didn't know. I needed to know in order to write the software. They didn't need to know because they cared about schedules and all they needed to do their job was a progress report from me. It all made sense to us.
Paul Martin invoked that phrase when he explained why he was told of the decision not to tax income trusts well ahead of the announcement:
"I knew and I'm one of them. The fact is, that the people who would be on a need-to-know basis would have that information," said Martin.
I would be interested to know who in the PMO would need to know this piece of tax policy ahead of time, and why exactly? What part of their job could they not perform without having that knowledge well ahead of time?
Heck, why would Paul Martin need to know? I can't think of a reason, actually.
Maybe a speechwriter would need a heads up to help prepare a speech. But if you were serious about compartmentalizing the information to avoid these sorts of problems, you would simply have your speechwriter prepare two speeches -- one to explain why income trusts needed to be taxed, and one to announce that they would not.
The concept of "need to know" is really quite simple. What would you have done differently today had you known about the decision not to tax income trusts versus what you normally would have done?
If the only thing you can think of if that you would not have placed one or more phone calls to some friends of yours on Bay Street, then you really didn't need to know.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Need to know == In the Loop == A term used to describe the compartmentalization of sensitive information.
In PaulM's Leak-of-Trust case, I'd guess that Tim "Comfy Fur" Murphy, Scott "Beer-and-Popcorn" Reid, and David "Polls-R-Us" Herle would be in the loop. Warren Kinsella decidedly would not be, although he did lobby Finance (on behalf of the Aspers) to change the income trust decision.
Posted by: cb at December 30, 2005 09:53 PM
Here is something interesting to know....
David Akin @ CTV news blog has some a interesting interview with exRCMP commisioner Norman Inkster
It's clear something was up in order to have a investigation from the RCMP..
Posted by: Tric at December 30, 2005 10:21 PM
Clearly we voters do not need to know.
Posted by: john at December 30, 2005 10:32 PM
Not to mention he looks like he told a big fat lie when he said it, check out my blog!
Posted by: Derek at December 30, 2005 10:48 PM
Well, it makes for good blogging, but the PMO would need to know. In both capacities.
As the real PMO, it's a decision that decides gov't policy. As the Liberal Brain-Trust (tm), it's a decision that is political.
I don't know if that's pro-Liberal or not. :)
Cheers,
lance
Posted by: Lance at December 30, 2005 10:57 PM
"Need to know" also includes the communications people in each office, including the guy from Goodale's office who made the phone call to the "old, confused" fellow whose organization changed their story on when they heard the details about the announcement.
Posted by: Patrick at December 31, 2005 02:08 AM
Need to know....hmmmmmmm....I'm sure that would include those in the PMs office responsible for spreading Liberal largesse.
Posted by: Paul at December 31, 2005 09:28 AM
Was John MCkay one of those in the "Need to Know" group? He seemed to "know" something different when he appeared on Newmans show with Solberg on Nov 23 in the afternoon.
Posted by: maggie menzies at December 31, 2005 12:21 PM
The MSM of course misses the obvious, Goodale met with some members of the Investment Dealers Association the day before he announced his decision concerning income trusts. Goodale refuses to name specifically who these people from the IDA are. It's no bloody mystery as to who told what, but to whom he told.
Posted by: at January 1, 2006 03:56 PM
That's my post above.
Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 1, 2006 04:00 PM
 
|
|
